I was refering to social communism and not economic communism. Radical Critique espouses a degree of equality that is patently false and demands that individuals with greater will adopt the ethics of those with a lesser will and ability.

.

So you admit there is a difference between social and economic values. Excellent, progress...

It would seem to me that most of the users on this forum define themselves as White Nationalist. I find the term a bit overt for my views, but it is useful, so I use it for the sake of uniformity.

There is a thread on here discussing Hugo Chavez. He is accused (I don’t know much about the man, and don’t care enough to look it up) of being Anti-White, and a socialist, if not full blown communist.

If he wasn’t Anti white, but Pro white (if he was white himself, I’m not sure on that point either, but I digress), would his economic viewpoint determine his value to the WN movement?

Communism states that all workers from all nations are equal, that is why it is so repugnant to most WN’s (myself included). We will leave out the fact that the system doesn’t work because of human nature.

But what if there was a Communism that was not internationalist, but nationalist. (i.e. National Bolshevism).

Could this movement be considered White Nationalist? Or is it impossible for a “National Bolshevik” to be a Patriot / Nationalistic.

Your thoughts on the matter would be greatly appreciated.

-The Fist

"Every child should own a pet snake. It will teach them the most valuable of all lessons. That in order to have something rare and beautiful, something disgusting, and numerous must die (sometimes excruciatingly) on a weekly basis. But at the end of the day, the sacrifice is worth it."

Well, most communists would probably state that Nationalism is incompatible with communism.

Personally, even a pro-white communist state would be repugnant to me because it is not just economics - communism, and in my belief socialism, are tied inextricably to the political ideology of Totalitarianism, which is unacceptable to me.

I'd rather see the white race survive under communism than die under freedom, but I'd rather see the white race survive in freedom than survive in a gulag.

Socialism does not require a radically different political system, nor the reevaluation of values of radical critique.

Socialism is not a political or social system. There are christian socialists that sought to work within the existing parlimentary system.

I am not resisting a logical argument. I admit my economic policies are strongly to the left. I believe in order to fully advance a Folkish Social Theory one must practice some degree of socialist economics.

However, I do not support Utopian Socialism(the competitive market is not unjust), or syndicalism (unions do more harm than good in the long run by driving up wages for unionized workers) I do believe that some industries should have significant, but not total, state investment. Basic goods such as electricity, water and waste management, roadways, and such should not be left to market flucuations.

As anarchism and communism (or marxism) both advocate abject reappropration of private property, and anarchism never truly articulates a different economic policy, the two are inseparable.

However, they do differ on a political level. Anarchism holds that governments will dissolve and political consciousness will become innate knowledge. While communism advocates a dictatorship of the prolitariat to insure the transition. To me this is a semantic argument.